Well see, when you destroy these elements, they do not vanish. They produce what are called residue. By measuring the residue of the destroyed elements, by analyzing the by products of the residue, you can determine the initial amount and type of elements in question.
Why does the US need to lie about this? Again, for the slow ones, we gave Saddam WMD. We know he has had them. We know that he gassed Iranians. Everyone knows he gassed Iranians. He has not proven that he destroyed the WMD by producing the destroyed materials when the UN asked him too.
Why is something that to me seems so simple to understand for you such a complex issue? Oh, but you haven't even contemplated how to test for destroyed WMD, or apparently read anything about it.

Cara eva, certain patterns the way you write reminds me on a yahoo forum. The word finance made me do this try. It has something to do with an Arab, cars and the SEC. Would you be so kind to give me a short answer on the Pravda>Politics>per pacifico solo forum. It?s the most oddly forum to discuss Aldo.

"If we were doing something wrong, I could understand this," he said when he regained his voice. "

The main problem we have now is that we have nothing.

We would really appreciate it if someone could help."

After the Airstrikes, Just Silence No Compensation, Little Aid for Afghan Victims of U.S. Raids, MADOO, Afghanistan -- There are more graves than houses in Madoo.

The mosque and many of the roughly 35 homes that once made up this hamlet in the White Mountains of eastern Afghanistan lie in rubble. At least 55 men, women and children -- or pieces of them -- are buried here, their graves marked by flags that are whipped by the wind.

Seventeen months after U.S. warplanes bombed this village and others in the vicinity of Osama bin Laden's cave complex at Tora Bora, Madoo's survivors say they can tell civilian victims of U.S. bombing in Iraq what to expect in the way of help from Washington: nothing.

"Our houses were destroyed," said Niaz Mohammad Khan, 30. "We want to rebuild, but we don't have the money. . . . We need water for our land. We need everything. People come and ask us questions, then go away. No one has helped."

Madoo is one of several enclaves in the region that the U.S. military bombed over several days in December 2001, killing an estimated 150 civilians. Once home to 300 people, Madoo has lost roughly half its population, villagers say. In addition to the dozens killed by U.S. airstrikes, many others lost their homes and moved away. The people who remain are destitute. They live crowded in the few stone and timber homes they've managed to rebuild on their own. They subsist on bread and the vegetables they grow. Several children look slight and frail.

Half a world away in Washington, finding ways to help people in such desperate need became an immediate priority for some policymakers and a dangerous precedent to others.

Congress directed that an unspecified amount of money be spent to assist innocent victims of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, just as it recently called on the Bush administration to identify and provide "appropriate assistance" to civilian victims in Iraq. But the money has not yet reached any of the intended recipients, U.S. officials acknowledged.

"The money is there," said Tim Rieser, an aide to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). "Mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in wars. We all know that. But we have yet to see the administration take action to carry out the law in Afghanistan."

The U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, had $1.25 million in last year's budget to help Afghan civilians who suffered losses as a result of U.S. military action, according to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. But the agency has not spent any of that money helping Afghans who had their relatives killed, their children maimed, their homes leveled or their livestock and livelihoods destroyed by American bombing, several U.S. officials in Afghanistan conceded this week.

The biggest obstacle to delivery of the aid, officials say, has been a prolonged debate over how to assist bombing victims without compensating them. To policymakers, the distinction between easing the plight of suffering innocents and compensating the victims of war is more than semantic. Both the U.S. military and the State Department are leery of setting legal precedents for compensation and have declined to establish programs that either systematically document civilian losses or give Afghans any opportunity to apply for reparations.

Short of that, military civil-affairs units in Afghanistan have, in isolated instances, provided general humanitarian assistance to communities that happen to have suffered as a result of U.S. bombing. They are, for example, helping rebuild Bamian University -- but only, officials insist, because Bamian needs a new university, not because U.S. bombs destroyed the old one.

"Claims have never been processed for combat losses," said Col. Roger King, U.S. military spokesman at Bagram air base near Kabul, the Afghan capital.

The policy debate has gone on too long, Rieser said. "It's tricky," he said. "We don't imagine going around handing out dollar bills to people. We are sensitive to the issues. If we were to announce some kind of a claims program, every single person in Afghanistan would sign up. It's just not feasible.

"But we do know about a lot of these bombing incidents. We know there is a real need there. Why not start doing something about it in the context of our overall aid program? All Congress is saying is, don't leave out the people who suffered serious losses on account of our mistakes. It should have happened already."

There are no official estimates of how many Afghan civilians have been killed by U.S. bombs. A survey published last year by the human rights group Global Exchange estimated the number at more than 800.

A year and a half after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Taliban and al Qaeda, bombs are still falling on Afghan civilians as U.S. forces combat a resurgence of terrorism aimed at destabilizing the government of President Hamid Karzai. In eastern Afghanistan this month, a U.S. warplane mistakenly killed 11 members of one family when a 1,000-pound laser-guided bomb missed its intended target and landed on a house.

And Madoo still lies in ruins.

The village, 25 miles south of Jalalabad, is not accessible by road. It is a short but arduous hike through mountain gorges from the Pakistan border. On the horizon jut the black peaks of Tora Bora, home of the cave complex where an estimated 1,000 of bin Laden's fighters are believed to have gathered after the defeat of the Taliban last fall.

It was late afternoon on Dec. 1, 2001, when U.S. warplanes appeared over Madoo. The people of Madoo were observing Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting.

"It was the time of breaking fast, and we were just sitting together to have dinner," Munir, 12, recalled. "We heard the voice of the planes, and we went outside to see what was happening. A bomb landed on our home. There weren't any Taliban or Arabs with us. For nothing they dropped bombs here."

After the first bombers left, Munir's mother and 8-year-old sister were dead. His infant brother, Abdul Haq, was buried alive. Relatives spied the boy's foot sticking out of a mound of dirt and dug him out.

The bombers returned three times, villagers said. In all, the people of Madoo say they buried at least 55 loved ones.

Many bodies were too damaged to identify. Some of the dozens of mounds in Madoo's hillside burial ground are marked with two and three pieces of wood, signifying that the remains of more than one person are interred there.

The people of Madoo remain puzzled by Americans. A retired Ohio lawyer, who read about one Madoo boy injured in the bombings, was so moved that he visited and gave each survivor about $300. People bought tents and clothes and wheat seeds to plant. But Madoo's losses outstripped one man's largess.

Munir's youngest brother, now a toddler, coughs frequently and swipes at his runny nose. His family, whose home and meager possessions were destroyed in the bombing, lives with relatives.

"Before, it was good here," Munir said. "The people and my father worked on the land. Life was better than it is now. We have lost everything."

Munir's father, Shingul, 55, who is raising his four surviving children alone, tried to talk about his late wife and daughter but could only turn away and weep.

"If we were doing something wrong, I could understand this," he said when he regained his voice. "But it was Ramadan and we were breaking the fast. The main problem we have now is that we have nothing. We would really appreciate it if someone could help."

Why does the US need to lie? Simple: because it wants justification for the invasion. It's much like Operation Northwoods in 1962, where the US government considered staging terrorist attacks and blaming them on Cuba in order to justify invading that country.

Why did the US want to invade Iraq? To strengthen Israel. The Israelis control US foreign policy through their lobby (e.g., the AIPAC) and through subversive means as well. They didn't like the way Saddam was sending money to mitigate the suffering of Palestinian families whose homes had been demolished by the IDF as punishment for being related to a suicide bomber. Also, they wanted control of that oil.

Yes, everyone knows that Saddam gassed people during the Iran-Iraq war. He was wrong to do it, but the US didn't seem to mind back then! Why the change? Could it be that the US was just using that as a pretext for invasion? The US has killed and maimed far more innocent people in the last ten years than Saddam could ever have hoped to.

As for the WMD question, you really don't know what you're talking about. Let's say Saddam had chemical or biological and destroyed them in an appropriate manner years ago. Was he supposed to look into his crystal ball and see that in the future he would need to show the remnants of those weapons to prove they were destroyed? How do you know the residue from destroying, say, nerve gas, isn't some totally commonplace compound or compounds? Are you a chemist? Maybe you can tell us all precisely what residue should have remained after those weapons were destroyed.

There's also a serious logical problem with your argument. Even if Saddam had provided proof of having destroyed X amount of weapons, that STILL wouldn't prove that he didn't have more stashed away somewhere. That's why the US placed the burden of proof on Iraq -- because it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove that you don't have something hidden somewhere.

If I were to ask you to prove that you had not hidden a nuke somewhere in your country, in a location known only to you, how would you go about proving that you had no such nuke?

"If I were to ask you to prove that you had not hidden a nuke somewhere in your country, in a location known only to you, how would you go about proving that you had no such nuke?"

I would detonate it in your country and say "oh, there it was, it was that one, see I don't have it hidden?" But as that kind of things didn't happen, it is unlikely they had WMD, or at least in large enough or usable quantities.

"Why does the US need to lie? Simple: because it wants justification for the invasion."

The justification is simple...9/11.

"Why did the US want to invade Iraq? To strengthen Israel. The Israelis control US foreign policy through their lobby.."

What a joke. Read my lips...9/11.

"Yes, everyone knows that Saddam gassed people during the Iran-Iraq war. He was wrong to do it, but the US didn't seem to mind back then! Why the change?"

Cause back then he was our boy. Then he went rogue. So we went in to get him. Things change, people change, and the US policy changes too.

"As for the WMD question, you really don't know what you're talking about. Let's say Saddam had chemical or biological and destroyed them in an appropriate manner years ago. Was he supposed to look into his crystal ball and see that in the future he would need to show the remnants of those weapons to prove they were destroyed?"

You're kidding, right? UN mandates since the 1991 war have instructed Saddam to prove he has destroyed any weapons. That kind of central to understanding this entire issue.

"How do you know the residue from destroying, say, nerve gas, isn't some totally commonplace compound or compounds? Are you a chemist? Maybe you can tell us all precisely what residue should have remained after those weapons were destroyed."

No I'm not a chemist, but other people are. We test destroyed agents all the time. Why, because we have been destroying our own WMD for many years. From our own Department of Defense contract with Eco Logic, here are a few. Read...

Current Demilitarization Activities Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program Non-Stockpile Chemical WeaponsEco Logic completed demonstration testing of the technology for the US Army on assembled chemical weapons components, including GB agent, HD mortar heel, carbon, DPE and metal parts. Eco Logic is in the early stages of another contract in support of non-stockpile initiatives, for to demonstrate treatment of agent hydrolysate wastes. Chemical Agent and Agent Hydrolysate - May 1996 Pilot-scale testing of the Process on the chemical warfare agents HD (distilled sulfur mustard) and VX was conducted in response to a request from the US Army. Three separate runs were conducted for each agent, processing a total of 1440 grams of VX and 2450 grams of HD. There was no agent observed above the detection limit in any of the post treatment samples, including the scrubber solution samples and the gas collection samples. Calculated DREs for VX and HD were consistently 99.999999%. VX hydrolysate tests were conducted using the same system. Analyses showed that the residual VX in the hydrolysate was destroyed, down to very low non-detect levels in the scrubber water samples and in the product gas samples. Energetics - June 1997 Treatability testing on projectiles was conducted for the US Department of Energy and the US Army ARDEC, under contract award from the Department of Energy. Treatment of 105 mm projectiles contaminated with trinitrotoluene (TNT), Composition B (Comp B, a mixture of TNT and RDX), and Yellow D (ammonium picrate) resulted in no explosive detected on the surface of the projectile, in the carbon residue, or in the scrubber effluent. M55 Shipping & Firing Tubes A three inch portion of an M55 Shipping and Firing Tube with PCB concentration of 120 ppm was processed in a single test run in the Thermal Reduction Batch Processor (TRBP). No PCBs were detected in the material remaining after treatment, at a detection limit of <0.05 ppm. Napalm - June 1997 Treatability testing on napalm in aluminum containers was conducted under contract from Department of Energy. Test criteria were: no napalm residual on container; no napalm residual in scrubber water; and container in recoverable condition. The test criteria were met for all tests, indicating successful destruction of napalm. DPE Suit - November 1998; June 1999 Treatability testing on a portion of a Demilitarization Protective Ensemble (DPE) suit. Results indicated Mass reduction of 80% within the TRBP and overall mass reduction of 60%. Remaining material suspected to be elemental carbon. More comprehensive testing was conducted in June 1999 on a DPE suit spiked with a chemical agent surrogate. The testing was successful, with GPCRTM treatment accomplishing all of the US Army's test requirements. Summary of Pilot-Scale Treatability Testing on Demilitarization WastesState-of-the-Art GPCR Portable Demonstration Unit

"That's why the US placed the burden of proof on Iraq -- because it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove that you don't have something hidden somewhere."

I'm glad we agree on something. Yes, since Saddam wouldn't prove what he did with the weapons we know he had, we had to go in to find them. Exactly.

"If I were to ask you to prove that you had not hidden a nuke somewhere in your country, in a location known only to you, how would you go about proving that you had no such nuke?"

Man, I had to read that twice. Your premise is misleading. Once again, if I had given you the nuke to begin with, I would expect that you would either give it back, or prove to me it was destroyed. Which is all we have been asking. Saddam has done neither. And he has paid for it.

Do we "have" Japan, that we liberated? Do we have Germany, and France, and the previous Eastern Bloc, and a host of others that we have liberated? Your paranoia about the US is just that, paranoia.
Why was the Eastern Bloc one of the greatest supporters of the Iraq 2 war? Because they know what it is like to be oppressed.
I really believe that people of your mind-set have personal issues with authority, itself. Maybe it's a Father issue, maybe it's a Mother issue, I don't know. But logically, it never is about the reality of the world we live in.